Judge agrees valid candidate is also a valid voter. But others lose their case.
But judge rejects challenge of returning officers by four other McGill students
He is considered to be a valid candidate, and because of that a court ruled Friday that Brendan Edge is also a valid voter.
Whether he will actually get to vote remains to be seen. The revision period for the voters’ list ended Thursday.
Edge, the Green Party of Quebec candidate for the Chomedey riding, was told by revision officers earlier this week he was not eligible to vote because he was a student who had moved from Ontario, and thus not a full-time resident of the province.
Edge was one of five McGill students who challenged the director of elections in court this week over decisions by returning officers to reject them from the master voters’ list.
Superior Court Justice Robert Mongeon ruled Friday that in order to be a valid candidate, one must first be a valid voter. So denying Edge the right to vote in his Mercier riding is nonsensical and a clear error on the part of returning officers. Edge said he twice tried to persuade returning officers to allow him to vote and used his candidacy papers as proof that he was a valid voter. The first time, he was told he couldn’t possibly be a valid candidate because he has difficulty expressing himself in French.
Edge said Friday he believes he was rejected as a voter because he chose to express himself to returning officers in English.
“I get terribly nervous speaking French,” Edge told reporters at Montreal’s courthouse. “I think that’s the reason (I was rejected).”
The other four students all tried to get on the voters’ list in the Westmount-Ville Marie riding. Each was rejected because returning officers did not believe they met the conditions of being domiciled in the province. The term domicile is a somewhat subjective term, open to interpretation. It applies to long-term residents of the province who intend to reside here on a permanent basis.
To help prove domicile, revision officers had asked each of the students for Quebec-issued driver’s licences and health insurance cards, which they did not possess.
Constitutional lawyer Julius Grey, who was representing the students, argued they should have the right to vote because when there is only one place of residence, that should be the one used to determine domicile.
Mongeon ruled, however, that revision officers have the right to interpret the law and the court shouldn’t question their decisions, except when an obvious error has been made, as in the case of Edge.
For the others, he said it was possible revision officers made errors, but it was not up to him to question their inter- pretation of the law.
Grey said although most of his clients didn’t win the right to vote, he’s pleased with the judgment because it means returning officers can’t make arbitrary decisions without being held to account.
“Mr. Edge’s case was so clear, and the decision was totally unreasonable,” Grey said. “(Returning officers) lose jurisdiction if they do something unreasonable.”
Because the case was heard so close to the vote, Grey had asked the court to grant a temporary injunction on the merits of the case, with more complete arguments to be made at a later date. The request was granted.
“I took the case on as a public-interest issue,” Grey said.
“But I would not want this to be interpreted as a statement that I believe all the employees of the director of elections are in some sort of cabal to prevent people from voting. I simply think they have perhaps a philosophy and interpretation which may be wrong and that a judge will one day evaluate on its merits.”
Geneviève Pelletier, a spokeswoman for the director of elections, said officials are examining the judgment. She couldn’t say if Edge would be permitted to vote, since the official revision period for the voters’ list ended on Thursday afternoon.